Follow by Email

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

New York Times Editorial, "A Breakthrough Agreement at Risk": Might Obama's Whimsical Deal With Khamenei Unwind?

Those who have access to the "real," as opposed to the televised, Obama know that the president is currently in a foul mood. The disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act, accompanied by a dizzying decline in his approval rating, fractured his ego. Now, both houses of Congress, with support from both sides of the aisle, are opposing his unenforceable "agreement to agree"  (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/thomas-friedman-bibi-and-barack-sequel.html) with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei.

And what inevitably happens when the president is under attack? The editorial board attack dogs of The New York Times come to his rescue.

In a myopic editorial entitled "A Breakthrough Agreement at Risk" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/opinion/a-breakthrough-agreement-at-risk.html?hp&rref=opinion), The New York Times would have us believe that Obama's deal is with a "moderate" Hassan Rouhani. The editorial begins:

"President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran both spent time last weekend trying to sell the Iran nuclear deal to skeptics among their constituents. In Mr. Obama’s case, that meant addressing pro-Israel supporters at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a Washington think tank. Mr. Rouhani’s speech to a university audience in Tehran was televised nationally. While either side could undermine the November interim agreement, and with it the best chance in 30 years for a genuine thaw in Iranian-American relations, the more serious threat seems to be on the American side."

Well for starters, this "agreement" is not with Rouhani, but rather with Khamenei. Obama was cooking up this deal with Khamenei during secret negotiations held in Oman over the past year (see (http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-held-secret-talks-with-iran-for-past-year/) long before Rouhani took office in August 2013.

Is Rouhani a "moderate," as The New York Times would have us believe? Iran, the world's per capita leader in capital punishment, has executed more than 370 persons since Rouhani took office as president (see: http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/1000000225-ihrdc-chart-of-executions-by-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-2013.html#.UqbCYkDxvcv).

The editorial continues:

"In the agreement, Iran committed to freezing or rolling back parts of its nuclear program and allowing daily inspections for six months in exchange for modest sanctions relief. In the meantime, negotiators for both sides will work toward a more lasting agreement. While not perfect, the six-month hiatus is unquestionably a good deal and would put the first meaningful curbs on Iran’s program in a decade."

"Iran committed to freezing or rolling back parts of its nuclear program"? Oh, really? Pursuant to the Obama's agreement to agree with Khamenei, Iran can:

The New York Times has the audacity to accuse the House and Senate of "mischief," inasmuch as they "are preparing legislation that would impose new sanctions." However, it was Rouhani who boasted prior to the Iranian presidential elections how he lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

The editorial concludes:

"The outcome of these efforts is unclear. What is clear is that they are not only unproductive but unnecessary because Congress could, at any point in the future, order tougher sanctions if any deal falls apart. Equally clear is that they will almost certainly enrage the Iranians."

God forbid that a paper tiger US should "enrage" a regime that continues to hang homosexuals from cranes in the middle of Tehran, stones to death women accused of adultery, and tortures and rapes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians and political dissenters in Evin Prison.

A cocksure Obama thinks his persuasive powers can tame these monsters, but the president is soon to be taught yet another painful foreign policy lesson by the mullahs, who are masters at manipulation and anything but naive.

No comments:

Post a Comment